WILLIE CUNNINGHAM AND PATRONELLA CUNNINGHAM, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLANCIE WHITE AND ESSIE WHITE, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Cunninghams obtained a default judgment against the Whites in an ejectment action arising from a boundary dispute, but the trial court vacated that judgment upon the Whites' motion filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Whites demonstrated both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense warranting relief from the default judgment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the judgment. The Whites demonstrated both excusable neglect—based on confusion from prior litigation of the same boundary dispute that they believed had been resolved—and a meritorious defense supported by a survey indicating the fence was located on their property.
[1] A trial court may grant relief from a final judgment upon a timely motion showing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
[2] A motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 1.540(b) must be made within a reasonable time, and no later than one year after the judgment was entered.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“relief may be granted within the sound discretion of the trial court upon a showing of the existence of a meritorious defense and a legal excuse for failure to comply with the rules.”
Establishes the two-part test required to set aside a default judgment under Rule 1.540(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1977, the Cunninghams filed an ejectment suit against the Whites over a boundary dispute. The Whites failed to plead or appear, resulting in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Time For Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
In August of 1977, the Cunninghams, appellants herein, filed an ejectment suit against the appellees. The action arose from a boundary dispute. A default was entered against the appellees when they failed to plead or appear, and on December 6, 1977 the court rendered final judgment for the appellants. In June of 1978 the appellees moved to set aside the default and final judgments. This interlocutory appeal is from the trial court’s December 1979 order vacating the judgment pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b). We affirm.
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b) provides, in relevant part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; .... The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and.. .not more than one year after the judgment, decree, order or proceeding was entered or taken.
Initially, we note that the appel-lees’ motion to vacate, filed six months after final judgment was entered, was timely made. This is not the only requirement that must be satisfied in order to have a judgment set aside, however. The general rule in such situations is that relief may be granted within the sound discretion of the trial court upon a showing of the existence of a meritorious defense and a legal excuse for failure to comply with the rules.
Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., 160 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). The Cunninghams contend that the appellees failed to show a meritorious defense and excusable neglect and that the judge below abused his discretion in vacating the judgment.
The courts of this state have generally been quite liberal in setting aside default judgments, and any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of granting the motion in order to permit a trial on the merits. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barker, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962). In their motion, the appellees stated that their neglect was excusable because they had previously litigated the same cause and thought that the matter was resolved. Apparently, two years prior to the present proceeding the Cunninghams filed a quiet title action over the same dispute and at the time of trial took a nonsuit. The court below was not informed of the prior litigation when the present ejectment action was filed. Ap-pellees’ motion also alleged a meritorious defense; the existence of a survey showing that the fence in question is on their own property.
Upon the record presented we are of the opinion that the appellees demonstrated excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in setting aside the judgments. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibraltar Serv. Corp. v. Lone & Assocs., Inc., 488 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…8 So. 2d 9 (1942), we conclude that counsel’s error here should have been so regarded. Any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of granting the motion to set aside default so that a case may be tried on its merits. E.g., Cunningham v. White, 390 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). There are numerous instances of not dissimilar errors being excused. Moreover, appellants filed sufficient pleadings to recite meritorious defenses. As v/e earlier said, this prong does not require an affidavit. Hall v. Byington…
-
Pedro Realty Inc. v. Silva, 399 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…(Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979). Consistent with our holdings that discretion should be liberally exercised in granting application for vacating default judgments so as to permit a trial on the merits, Cunningham v. White, 390 So. 2d 467 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Kiaer v. Friendship, Inc., 376 So. 2d 919 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), we hold that a denial contained in a responsive pleading may allege a meritorious defense so as to create an issue of fact. North Shore Hospital, supra; Bay Convalescent…
-
Okeechobee Imports, Inc. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fla., 558 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…., 464 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Raymond, 103 Fla. 649, 138 So. 40 (1931); Foundation Well Point Corp. v. Bauman, 437 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1984); Cunningham v. White, 390 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s motion to set aside default and final judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Fla. Inv. Enters., Inc. v. The Ky. Co., Inc., 160 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)